- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


Please read this and tell me what you think

November 4th, 2005, 11:24 AM
Please read this and tell me if you are thinking what I am thinking? Basically i feel the dog is being blamed b/c of the breed. for me the charge of beastility is in place to protect animals not humans so why does this reporter not get that. Why is saying that b/c of the breed that it should have been more agressivily prosecuted? Do you feel that the dog is in the wrong in any way? Please tell me because I was personally taken back by how this reporter wrote his story. is it just me.

Be warned its not a nice story and not for kids

In the wake of Attorney General Michael Bryant's controversial and headline-grabbing legislation earlier this year that put the muzzle to pit bulls, one would think the appeal Crowns under his command would jump on any criminal case where the breed played a particularly ugly role and the dog's handler got off lightly in the courts.

But apparently not.

From this point onward, parental guidance is advised.

Back in August, a now-17-year-old Scarborough girl -- her name protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act -- was sentenced by Justice Paul Robertson to 20 months probation after pleading guilty to the Criminal Code offence of "compelling bestiality" -- as in using a neighbour's pit bull as a sexual weapon in the anal rape of a then-12-year-old boy.

There were conditions on the girl's probation order, of course, including counselling to address "sexual offending and anger management."

The Crown prosecutor, Kim Motyl, had sought a custody and community supervision order of 18 to 20 months, all to be followed by a year probation and counselling.

She also requested an order for the girl's DNA to be submitted to the federal database, as well as the conviction being registered under the high-profile designation of "serious violent offence."


Both were denied.

Believing the sentence did not adequately reflect the crime, Kim Motyl's boss, Tony Loparco, appealed to the Crown's appeal office on Bay St. where it was reviewed and then rejected.

"We never comment on the reasons," said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman at the Office of the Attorney General, the overseer of the Crown's office.

"That's it. There is nothing more to be said."

The facts of the case are as follows: In August 2003, the then-15-year-old girl was hired by a neighbour in her apartment building to look after her pit bull terrier while she went away to the west coast, and left her explicit instructions not to bring any other person into the apartment.

The police report is three pages long. And it is graphic.

It has the girl attending the apartment to feed the pit bull, and taking along the 12-year-old "victim" who also lived in the same building. They were sitting on the couch when the dog climbed up and began "humping" the boy.

Both, according to the report, thought it was "funny."

"We need to get rid of his horniness," the girl reportedly said, and then instructed the boy to get down on the floor on his hands and knees where she then forcibly pulled down his pants and underwear, and put the pit bull in position.

The boy told her to stop -- that it was "no longer funny."

But it wasn't about to stop.

"The victim began crying in pain," reads the police report. "After about 10-15 seconds of the dog penetrating the victim, the accused began hitting the dog on the head to break him off. The accused instructed the victim not to tell."

Back at his own apartment, the boy initially told his mother that his "puffy" face -- swollen from crying -- was the result of banging his head on a shelf. After he went to the bathroom and discovered he was bleeding, however, he let the entire story spill out, including showing her the scratches on his back that were consistent with claw marks.

According to the police, the boy's mother confronted the girl, but did not immediately report it to the police because she feared the girl was not only a bully, but a member of a gang in that end of Scarborough.

It was only after a social worker at the boy's school called the mother to discuss her son's increasingly bad behaviour did the mother disclose the events of that summer. The social worker, in turn, called Children's Aid who, in turn, called the cops.

The girl was originally charged with three criminal counts, one for compelling bestiality, one for bestiality on a person under the age of 14, and another for sexual assault.


The last two charges were withdrawn when the girl pleaded guilty to the first count. During the sentencing, Judge Robertson said that, despite the Crown's prosecutor's use of the words such as "repugnant" and "perverted," he could find "no evidence before him that the physical injuries (to the boy) were anything more than transient in nature."

He also said he "would not equate this offence with one of incest or a serious sexual assault" that would result in "psychological damage far in excess of the physical nature."

"The offence before me was spontaneous, lasting about 10, 15 seconds," said the judge. "It started as an ill-advised joke between friends."

It was Tony Loparco, the head Crown in Scarborough, and prosecutor Kim Motyl's boss, who asked for the appeal.

"From a legal perspective, I knew the appeal would likely be turned down, simply because the girl will soon be 19," said Loparco. "That, and the fact that young-offender rulings are rarely changed.

"But, was it worth a try? Yes, it was," said Loparco. "Imagine what that boy went through, with a pit bull.

"Sometimes you just despair for humanity.

"It's frightening. It truly is frightening."

jesse's mommy
November 4th, 2005, 12:59 PM
First of all, from my personal opinion I have to say this is sick and extremely *****ed up. (Sorry to be graphic in my language, but I think this story warrants it.)

Now as for the story, why didn't the reporter focus on what was done in protection of the animal? I feel horrible for the boy, but I feel horrible for the dog too. I'm hoping to God nothing happened to that dog. As for the sentence for this girl, I understand she is underage, but why did she only get a 20 month sentence? Why wasn't she sent to a mental hospital? This is definitely signs of future mis-sexual behaviours. I bet she really does turn into a sexual predator that just progresses further and further with each incident to who knows what -- maybe even murder. I don't understand why justice systems go so lightly on underage children that do such terrible crimes that without a doubt will lead to crimes in the future. I understand they are children, but there are some crimes that shouldn't be ignored so much because of age.

November 4th, 2005, 01:15 PM
While the most obvious victim is the boy, I would hope someone also looked after the dog and also recommended counselling for the girl. I doubt a long term psychiatric facility would help this girl - the reality is that court ordered psychiatric assessments are clogging the medical system and this includes more violent actions than this - and this is horrible and bizarre in and of itself. ER workers will tell you they see worse. I have seen worse so I am not shocked any more tho I myself am saddened by that. I would hope the girl was ordered to at least undergo a court ordered psych evaluation and then is monitored while she undergoes is in psychiatric care (either a group home or something comprable). That the dog would do this is worrisome - one wonders what kind of activities its owner was engaged in though I do realize an intact dog will hump just about anything at times. I've seen an intact rescued poodle try to hump the leg of a child and I doubt the pooch had been trained to do this. I certainly did not train my bunny to hump my sock. (and he was neutered! But I bought him a stuffed toy to "play with"). If the dog was reported to the SPCA thouygh, would it have been taken and then put down? I just wonder what could have been done? Is there a Pit Bull Rescue in Toronto?

I also wonder about the relationship of the pit bull owner and the girl - or whether there is sexual abuse somewhere in her family?

November 4th, 2005, 01:26 PM
The thing that bothers me is the fact the reporter seems to place some blame on the dog. Maybe I am being too sensitive but if you read the first paragraph it seems as that he thinks b/c the dog is a pit that this case should be more vigoursly prosecuted but as far as I am concerned the dog pit bull or not had nothing to do with this case in a legal matter. Yes it partcipated but what can they charge the dog with rape? I mean seriously.

And for this to mechanically work I would think that the girl would have to "put" the dog in the right position.

November 4th, 2005, 02:50 PM
IMO, I don't see how you can blame the dog. The dog was doing what alot of dogs do. Hump things. She forced the boy on his knees with his pants down, and she positioned the dog. It not like the dog forced the kid on his knees, made him pull down his pants, and got into position. This story is very sick :yuck: . I think the young offenders act is a joke in this country.

A little of topic, but recently some kid just got off with practically nothing for stabbing and killing a kid at a party in St Albert. The youth charged was turning 18 the day after the stabbing. Still they charged him as a young offender.

November 4th, 2005, 05:12 PM
There are two victims here and I disagree with the dog being put down although the bible says it should be so….but then again the girl (the real instigator) would also be killed.

Let the dog live and stone the girl……………

Leviticus 20:15 states: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.... See also Exodus 22:19.

Holy cr*p I just quoted the bible.............

jesse's mommy
November 4th, 2005, 05:18 PM
Speaking of quoting the Bible, here's a funny story. Every year around Christmas I watch all the Rudolphs, Frosty, Santa Claus cartoons/clay shows. My favorite is a Charlie Brown Christmas. So I make Jim watch it last year and he makes the comment I never watched these stupid things when I was a kid and I can't believe you are making me watch this. So when Linus starts explaining the meaning of Christmas, Jim starts reciting it along with Linus, so I say (being a smart a**) I thought you never watched these stupid things, huh? He cracks a smile and says, it's Psalms such and such from the Bible. Didn't I feel like a dummy. I had no idea. I thought Charles Schultz made it up...

November 4th, 2005, 05:24 PM
The reporter opened with the Michael Bryant/Pit Bull connection, wht the heck has that got to do with this absolutely horrific story. Gaawd is it not sensational enough in the facts of the story that they had to throw in another hook line???? What are they trying to say that Pbs are now Sexual Deviants???? The girl obviously needs serious help and I can only assume that she herself has been a victim of some sexual abuse to have even come up with such a thought, let alone act on it. There are probably three victims here :sad:

November 4th, 2005, 06:58 PM
That is terrible. I feel sorry for the poor child and dog.

About the reporter (Bryant/pitbull thing) - I think what the writer was trying to say was: If this horrific crime wasn't enough to motivate the AG's office to pursue harsher charges, you'd think he'd at least be motivated to act because it involved a pitbull.

He did a really bad job writing the article, but I think it was meant to be a slam on Bryant(ie more concerned with pitbulls than crime).

November 4th, 2005, 07:20 PM
You m ay be right Loki, I may have interputed it that way cause thats what Im used to readng, its not very clear though, if the reporter is slamming Bryant than I applaud his or her intentions!

November 4th, 2005, 10:59 PM
I have to admit I read this during a break at work and did not think there was an emphasis on the pit connection but I just reread it - wondering "so why is everyone associating this with pitbulls, the pitbull here was used by the perpetrator of the crime, he was not the one in the wrong". I reread it and saw he used the pitbull connection as an opening sentence. I suspect that was to attract attention and he may not have dne it deliberately to pick on pitbulls - for the reporter, the pitbull connection is one way to ensure interest in the story (or so he thinks). I think you are prob more sensitive to it, which is understandable given everything that is unfairly happening to pitties and their people in Ontario. I tend to be a careful newspaper reader (most of the time) and the main message I got from that story was that here was a psychopath in the making - a teenage girl who abused a pitbull by using it in a perverse and bizarre crime and who badly needs help - and to to take responsibility for her actions! I still wonder about the owner and why the dog is not neutered (I am guessing this guy is not showing the dog).

Which begs the question. In Ontario, what happens to pitbulls who participate in shows since under most rules, show dogs cannot be spayed or neutered???? Do they get a special dispensation?

What a %$^# stupid law!!!! I hope like Cleveland, it is overturned quickly!!